Talk:Remote viewing/pseudoscience infobox rfc

RfC for pseudoscience infobox

The article is listed on Category:Pseudoscience, and this listing is not challenged. The question is whether it's adequate to use {{Infobox Pseudoscience}} for an article on the pseudoscience category. Looking at WP:PSCI, can the infobox be used on "Generally considered pseudoscience" or if it should be reserved exclusively for "Obvious pseudoscience"? Also, are there better infoboxes to use instead of this one? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• This fits both anyway. It is generally considered pseudoscience, and it is also obvious pseudoscience since it purports to scientific method but relies on concepts that have no scientifically proven validity. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What's more, the article says that some astrologers claim that the scientific method does not apply to astrology, which makes it inherently unscientific and logically defunct (the scientific principle is based on cause and effect; if cause and effect do not apply to a system supposed to predict the future or analyse the present by looking at the past, then what does?). If something "can not be explained by science", then it can't be science, simple as that. Ergo: obvious pseudoscience with the usual claims of scientific bases. — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 06:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Heh- no, that's an argument that Astrology is not pseudoscience. If it doesn't claim to be science, it isn't pseudoscience. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• I see no reason to restrict the infobox to just "Obvious" pseudoscience. Anything generally considered pseudoscience is a legitimate candidate for this infobox. I also agree with JzG that it's a moot point on this article. Powers ^T 14:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overall, I'd say that this a rather weak example of an infobox and if used at all, it should be done so with extreme care. This is not a branding tool to satisfy the opinions of some, but rather a way to consistently summarize related topics that are beyond doubt an obvious pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Nealparr

Since I have multiple issues to cover, I'm sectioning them.

Principles & observations

• An arbitration case on pseudoscientific topics made the distinction between Obvious pseudoscience, Generally considered pseudoscience, Questionable science, Alternative theoretical formulations, and gave loose content guidelines for each pertaining to the categorization of the topic (at lower levels) and characterization of the topic (at upper levels).
• From Help:Infobox: "An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject."
• Infoboxes provide an "at-a-glance" summary of the text so that one need not read it all to get the basic info.
• In short articles, no infobox is necessary to summarize the info.
• The arbitration case did not cover the use of infoboxes in this area.
• The Category:Pseudoscience has been up for discussion twice [1][2] with various points raised. Among the votes to keep there were additional comments about how it should be used.
• The {{Infobox Pseudoscience}} itself was up for deletion [3]. The result was not keep, but "no consensus", which defaults to keep. Again, among the votes to keep there were additional comments about how it should be used.
• As of 12:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC), there are less than 50 transclusions[4] of the infobox template despite a creation date of November 2005, indicating that it is an obscure template. Only 17 of these transclusions are actual articles.
• The template was added here after a content dispute. Previously it has never been used here, nor discussed being used here.
• The articles where the use of the infobox is currently being disputed is Remote viewing[5] and Water memory[6].
• It was likewised added to Water memory article following a content dispute.
• The orginal infobox was titled "Disputed science"[7]. It was renamed to "Pseudoscience" in January 2008[8].
• It was nominated for deletion shortly thereafter (Renamed January 10 2008, put up for deletion February 3 2008). Again, the result of that nomination was "no consensus". In the little over two years between creation and renaming, there were no debates about it that I could find.
• WP:UNDUE, part of the core Neutral Point of View policy, states: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
• As an encyclopedia striving to cover multiple issues surrounding a topic, rarely is a topic all about pseudoscience. For example even in astrology, there is historical/cultural viewpoints to cover. Even in the hot topic of concern to scientists, intelligent design, it's not all about science vs. pseudoscience. Legal issues such as a separation of church and state must also be covered. "Categorical ownership" is therefore a concern, related to WP:UNDUE.
• When adding the infobox to the Water memory article, the contributing editor remarked "adding infobox. right next on the lead was a bit too prominent, so I put it under the next section"[9]. That was May 1 2008. On May 4 2008, it was added to lead section of Remote viewing[10].
• The infobox is much larger than a simple category link, the links alone being a contentious issue.

Personal speculation

• Infoboxes, by way of their size and definitely by way of their placement, have a tendency to "brand" a subject as being all, mostly, or heavily about the topic the infobox covers. Adding a contentious infobox to an article is like stamping it with a scarlet letter. This is especially true if no other infoboxes are present, and when the infobox is given prominent placement. All other aspects surrounding the topic are immediately overshadowed by the "big box". Whether the box should even exist is only partly a concern. Whether one should use the box and when is the bigger issue. The issue becomes compounded when one uses the box in a middle of a content dispute, because then it becomes about whether that edit is WP:DE or WP:POINT, regardless of the merits of including the box itself.

• Motives. Related to the above point, an editor wishing to add the infobox to an article, in or out of a content dispute, should really spend some time explaining their motive in doing so. It's an obscure or unpopular infobox, only used on 17 articles in the 2,360,000 + articles Wikipedia covers. It's also a contentious infobox, surrounded in disputes and debates, prone to causing disputes and debates. If it's a good faith addition, editors should explain the merits of it and respond to concerns raised by other editors without taking it personally. One of the things I'm hoping to point out here is that discussion is always needed when using this particular infobox.

• An infobox should only be used to summarize information, not to make a point or to brand a topic. This means that if an article is short, no infobox is necessary at all. If an article is of sufficient length where an infobox provides a useful summary, then it should be used in a placement relative to where the information it is summarizing is located. If an article concerns multiple aspects related to the topic independently of the topic of pseudoscience, a pseudoscience infobox should not dominate or in any way imply that the subject is all, mostly, or heavily about pseudoscience; it should be placed near to where the topic of pseudoscience is discussed (typically in a criticism section, not the lead which brands the article).

• I consider the astrology article to be a "good" use of the box. Note that the astrology article contains several graphics and infoboxes, where a single infobox wouldn't overshadow another. Also note it's placement in a section specifically discussing "Astrology and science". It doesn't assert that the primary issue surrounding astrology is that it's considered pseudoscience. It allows, for example, the discussion of astrology's history, cultural influences, and so on to continue without distraction. Only when the discussion turns to astrology and science is the infobox used, and only there is it relevant. It's not plastered in the lead, nor in some other irrelevant place. On the intelligent design article it is likewise used appropriately, placed in a section called "Defining science", which is heavily where "pseudoscience" is relevant.

Case by case

• Seeing as how there are only 17 articles that even use the template, two of them being the recently disputed uses, we could actually go case-by-case and examine what's appropriate and what isn't. Four of them Astrology, Phrenology, Intelligent design, and Creation science are used appropriately without question. Those have other infoboxes/graphic boxes so that it's not dominant on the page, and all of them use the infobox in a section explicitly relevant, either talking about how it is pseudoscience or comparing the topic to science. None of them label the topic as being all about pseudoscience, but instead allow uninterrupted discussion of other aspects of the topic, for example legal issues in the case of intelligent design or the historical/cultural aspects of astrology.

Discussion on Nealparr's points

(You can discuss my points here)

Sorry so long. There were issues involved in using the infobox that I felt no one was addressing, and I wanted to hilight them. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 12:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This section is normally for comments for outsiders commenting on the RfC question, since the usual editors have already commented on other sections and the purpose of the RfC is usually to bring uninvolved editors that can bring a fresh view when the usual editors get stuck, but your post is so well done that I won't move it. Commenters can probably read it throught and get a good view of the question --Enric Naval (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the new template on the Myron Evans page.

• By removing the name section of the old template, the contents of the template had to be adjusted to include Einstein-Cartan-Evans (ECE) theory which appears nowhere else in the article.
• The heading "pseudoscientific ideas" does not seem best possible; in this and many other cases "pseudoscientific theories" would surely be more appropriate. In the academic world people usually refer to "scientific theories" and vary rarely to "scientific ideas".

Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Theories" really looks more appropiate, I changed the title --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling them "theories" is in itself pseudoscientific. They don't really meet the technical definition of theory as used by science. From the article on theories:

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

The common usage, in a scientific context, is misleading. That's why I used "ideas". When one refers to "scientific theories", it doesn't involve pseudoscience. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And using "Pseudoscientific Subjects", the same word that Pseudoscience uses? (sorry if my suggerence is lame) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Pseudoscientific Subjects" would be for a category of subjects or a nav box. It's much broader than the purpose of an info box, which is meant to summarize something particular. This is an infobox that points out what idea in the subject is pseudoscientific (not the subject as a whole). It's not a nav box like {{Paranormal}} or {{Parapsychology}} or the other nav boxes. In this case it's an info box meant to summarize the pseudoscientific concept in the subject. "Concept" works too if you don't like "idea", but "subjects" is broader than the scope of the box and "theory" is misleading. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply and discussion olive

I'm not sure you wanted this section for open discussion, so If I am in the wrong place please move my comments. I wanted to emphasize the importance, in my mind, of this statement." "An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject."

• The inclusion of non-consistently and non-community accepted info boxes seems questionable since anyone could create an infobox anywhere, creating Undue Weight and any POV. This inclusion seem to push the boundaries of what might be acceptable in an article where consensus and agreement ensure the evolution of a discussion.
• The insertion of the info box at this point in discussion was disruptive to the discussion since it had not been discussed, had no consensus or agreement for inclusion in a contentious article undergoing long discussion, and in being placed veered discussion off into another direction
• I would also consider the box badly placed. It reiterates what is said in the lead and is redundant in this proximity, and quite possibly anywhere in the article.

undueweight

Infoboxes get a lot of space/weight/prominence in an article. They approach "one picture is worth 10,000 words" in prominence/effect. Many articles labelled (correctly) pseudoscience now swamp the detailing of the topic with poorly sourced OR on the scientific flaws of the theory/"world view" in ways that fail WP:WEIGHT. The psuedo-science info box greatly exacerbates this problem, resulting in more undue weight/emphasis being given to the pseudo-scientific nature of the topic. Many commonly held beliefs/"world views"/models are not scientifically based. We should be presenting RS info on the topic as per WP:NPOV, section WP:DUE, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them..." - not creating ""What's crap and what's not - An Encyclopaedic Guide to A Scientific Reality SmithBlue (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hum, which are those articles that are correctly labelled as pseudoscience, in spite of their subjects being based on belief and not on science? Can you point us to one of those articles? --Enric Naval (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There's several actually. List of Pseudoscientific Theories#Religious and spiritual beliefs (and others in the list outside that section). My personal contention is with listing Reincarnation in there. What's that about? Many of these are sourced to Skeptic's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, written by Michael Shermer, a former New Ager turned skeptic. It's easy to see why he would include some religous topics in his book, but in many cases it would be undue weight to contextualize the topic as being all or mostly about pseudoscience, or to weight Shermer's opinion as a notable one to the topic outside the narrow context where it applies. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see Feng shui, Neoshamanism, Reincarnation and Shroud of Turin, but none of them uses the Pseudoscience infobox, and, actually, they aren't even on the "Pseudoscience" category....

As an aside, the article sets context before the list saying "Spiritual and religious practices and beliefs are normally not classified as pseudoscience.[124] At least one prominent skeptical source relates the following to pseudoscience in some way, however:". Also, looking at Reincarnation#Scientific_research, I can see a short section where some prominent scientists have debated the scientific basis for reincarnation and scientific research about it (I even added a bit of sourcing about Carl Sagan), so it's not that off the mark to talk about scientific research on reincarnation, even if the focus of the article is on the belief --Enric Naval (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about topics described as pseudoscience in general. If you're just talking about the infobox it's only used on 17 articles total, none religious, and none concerning just belief-topics. Each one is tangibly connected to a pseudoscientific claim. Here it wasn't (at least not implicitly), but I already fixed that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is a RfC on using the infobox when the article is already categorized as pseudoscience :) The issue raised by Whiteblue is a different one, about how some non-pseudoscience articles get swamped with the debunking of the scientific claims made by a minority. I guess that *those* articles would need a "scientific claims" infobox instead. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it comes down to the issue of "branding the topic" that I outlined above. Eg. Reincarnation. If the infobox is placed in the lead it becomes problematic. If the infobox is placed in that section talking about the efforts of some to scientifically establish reincarnation, and the issue of that being pseudoscience is fully covered in that section, it's less of a problem. It'd probably still be hard to get editors to accept having the infobox there or want it to be there (it's still a contentious box, possibly overweighted POV, possibly neutral), but at least there'd be a sound rationale for it being there, and it'd be a technically correct usage. I personally feel it's more acceptible now that the title's been changed. Now it's about the concepts that are pseudoscientific rather than the whole topic being about pseudoscience, and the box can be used correctly to summarize info in the section rather than as a brand. That's just my opinion though. Using the box will probably remain controversial. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Seems that concerns have been more or less addressed, and actual situation of infobox on article is not longer contested. It seems that the RfC has already fulfilled its purpose, it was five days since last comment, so I'm closing it --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Until discussion on info box can be completed

Deleted for now until discussion and consensus or agreement from all editors can take place. Violates WP:Undue Weight since it repeats information in the lead paragraph and is placed in proximity to it, and so also violates NPOV since its placement and repetitious nature emphasize certain points. As well this was put in place in a contentious article recommended for mediation, without agreement or consensus in discussion. Further there is disagreement about the use of the term Pseudoscience which should probably be discussed before the term is used again in an info box. Finally, this info box, see Nealparr’s, discussion is not a “consistently formatted table”. Because there are multiple concerns here, discussion would be an appropriate next step.(olive (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

"Consistently formatted table" is technical jargon referring to the code that displays the information in the template. It's a table, consistently formatted. But all the other reasons, yes, absolutely. The infobox can be used, but not misused as it is here. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry and thanks for correcting me. Thought that was referring to something else... makes perfect sense as technical jargon in reference to code now that I see it used ... not that I am knowledgeable in that area, very far from it.(olive (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Discussion of alternatives and addition of navigational template(s)

I'm actually ok with using it on the criticism section, and I agree on moving it there even if no better infobox is found. Any series box will do (a template listing a series of articles on the same topic, similar to an infobox on size and placement. See the use of {{Infobox Paranormalterms}}{{Infobox paranormal term}} at Clairvoyance). What do you think of it? Suggerences to adapt it to this article? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We can probably also find some navigational template for the bottom of the article, so it's more tightly integrated with other parapsychology articles. I hope that this is not controversial. Doh, actually, I see that {{Parapsychology}} already links to RV, but RV does not use the template. Anyone opposes to adding it? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of reading up on Nealparr's stuff above. But unless he has reasons for not doing this, I think that is a good solution as I said above. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Parapsychology}} is good. {{Paranormal}} is better (I did a lot of coding on it myself). It includes related topics including skepticism, debunking, and pseudoscience. It's well balanced. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We can probably add both, like in Psychokinesis, Ghost, Parapsychology, Telepathy, Psychic and Extrasensory_perception and I suppose that many other articles, as they go on different parts of the article. I see that both already link to RV, so they should be fairly uncontroversial. I see that {{Infobox Paranormalterms}}{{Infobox paranormal term}} would have one of the problems with the pseudoscience infobox: repeating information that is already on the lead. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Great (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaningless machinations

It doesn't matter to me where the pseudoscience infobox goes in. All that should be noted is when some subject is obviously pseudoscience, it is not controversial to merely include an infobox that summarizes the main points of the pseudoscience. The arguments that including such a box causes "undue weight" to describing the pseudoscience as a pseudoscience are particularly ridiculous. Wikipedia is in the business of describing reality, not fantasy. If people want to place the box in other locations in the article, that's a stylistic question and is irrelevant to the discussion of whether pseudoscience infoboxes should be used in the first place. Reasonable editors who have science degrees can agree which subjects are pseudoscience and which aren't. It's not hard. Parapsychology is pseudoscience. Electrodynamics is not pseudoscience. The end. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Groovy. Updated [11] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The info box in place now, seems at this point to be fine to me. I objected to the one in place previously because it created a POV rather than adding information, because of its placement, and because of what it said and how it was said. Its important to separate the idea of an info box from the kind of info box used. As regards pseudoscience, the question is not whether it is or not but who says it is, and if its verifiable and reliable. I have a terminal degree in art but that doesn't mean I can decide for Wikipedia what is good and bad art, and whether its real art or fantasy. I am however not arguing one way or the other at this point about pseudoscience, and admit that I was distracted and my points were not clearly stated, and one in particular was inaccurate.(olive (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Art and science sit in very different places on the empirical and epistemological trees. Judging whether something is pseudoscience is not the same as judging whether something is "bad art" or "good art". If we must make a comparison, distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is more akin to judging whether some piece of artwork is propaganda/advertising or not. Sure, there are weird boundary issues (is Andy Warhol's art advertising? Is Charles Fort an advocate for pseudoscience?) but the very fact that people agree that there are boundaries in these discussions indicates that it isn't simply a matter of "who says so" any more than 1+1=2 is a who-says-so argument. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

People may agree that there are boundaries, but they don't appear to agree easily as to where those boundaries are. A quote from www.websters-online-dictionary.org on pseudoscience:

The boundaries between pseudoscience, protoscience, and "real" science are often unclear. Many people have tried to offer objective criteria for the term, with mixed success. Often the term is used simply as a pejorative to express the speaker's low opinion of a given field, regardless of any objective measures. If the claims of a given field can be tested it may be real science, however odd or astonishing. If they cannot be tested by any means imaginable it is likely pseudoscience. If the claims made are inconsistent with experimental results or established theory, it is often presumed to be pseudoscience.

In light of the above, it looks as if an end to presumption on this topic is long overdue. If there are sources that indicate successful results, even in microscopic amounts, then either post them and have a rational discussion (read: without condescension, insult, or character assassination) on them, or wipe this entire article from the site. As it stands, this discussion does not speak well for the professionalism of Wikipedia editorship.

Eigentourist (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverts for syntax

Some of these reversions are of syntactical problems they should be left in place and not reverted to versions that are weaker in terms of grammar and syntax.(olive (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

For heaven's sake no need to edit war over grammar... sheesh.(olive (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC))